Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

The Week That Was: 2014-01-04 (January 4, 2014) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project

###################################################

Quote of the Week: • “Victory awaits him, who has everything in order – luck we call it. Defeat is definitely due for him, who has neglected to take the necessary precautions – bad luck we call it” –Roald Amundsen, led the expedition to first reach the South Pole (Dec, 1911) and captained the Gjøa, which was the first vessel to sail through the entire Northwest Passage (1903-06)

Re-Format: Starting this week, the order of topics in TWTW have been re-formatted somewhat. In general, the topics follow this order: science issues, policy issues, then energy issues. As a result, topics such as Questioning European Green are further down in order of presentation than in the past.

It is becoming obvious to most but not all (such as the US Navy) that smart drilling has changed the oil and natural gas future for the US, without any assistance from Washington. Thus, articles on oil and natural gas will be fewer. [Smart drilling can be defined as precision horizontal drilling of dense shale, multi-port hydraulic fracturing using sand or ceramics and limited chemicals to keep the fractures open.] Well-life, extraction costs, etc. remain open and articles on such issues will be continued, as well as any sound environmental issues. Based on current reports, extraction costs of oil are above $50 per barrel, significantly above the about $20 per barrel for Saudi Arabia.

Developments in offshore drilling, and any (unlikely for now) expansion of drilling on Federal lands will be linked. Transportation remains a major issue; the need for new pipelines is clear.

Reports place the estimated transportation costs [including compression and regasification] of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) of about $5 to $6 per 1000 cubic feet, making the feasibility of export from the US to Europe questionable, but export to Asia economically feasible – at least on paper. Developments in these areas will be linked as they occur.

*****************

UnScience or Non-Science? It is becoming increasingly evident that the climate models relied on by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its followers, have failed to predict the current stoppage in global warming, and greatly overestimate warming of areas such as the tropics. We are seeing an increase in studies on the results of these models, even though they have not been validated, and their projections are failing. The question is how to classify these studies. They are certainly not empirical science, because they impart no empirical knowledge, except to the models themselves.

Over 60 years ago, Bertrand Russell had a book published entitled “Unpopular Essays.” He described how he came about the title. In a preface to a prior work, he said that the work should be of interest to the general educated public. Critics took him to task and complained that certain passages were difficult to understand, implying he misled purchasers. He did not wish to be charged with this again. He fully admitted that certain passages in the new work may be difficult for some to understand. Thus, he cannot claim the essays are popular. If not popular, they must be unpopular.

Following a similar logic, if the often elaborate computer model exercises do not convey empirical knowledge, they are not science [in the traditional sense]. Thus, they are not science, and they must be UnScience or Non-Science.

*****************

Strong Positive Feedback? This week Nature magazine published an article claiming that of the models the authors examined, those that project very high increases temperatures from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) (a strong positive feedback) described the behavior of clouds better than those models that project moderate increases in temperatures from a doubling CO2. The paper was trumpeted to support the usual claims of dire world consequences from the burning of fossil fuels. Upon initial review, it appears that the paper suffers from several inadequacies, including highly selective use of data. But, these will be discussed in the future.

What is of particular interest is the logic used. If a climate model describes some phenomena well, it should be preferred to a model that does not. Under ordinary circumstances this would be the choice. But the issue is future temperatures, and there is no reason to assume a model that explains current temperature trends poorly will describe future temperature well. All the models which project high future temperatures are performing poorly against observations.

As discussed by Richard Lindzen (TWTW Dec 21, 2013 and elsewhere), climate models and the IPCC procedures are not ordinary circumstances. The concept of falsification is sidestepped and there is no rigorous chain of logical reasoning and experimentation. Simply, because a climate model gets one thing right that does not mean it will get anything else right.

As climate modelers have claimed, because the models failed to project the current stoppage in warming and many greatly overestimate current temperature trends, this is not evidence that the climate models have been falsified. Fair enough. Correspondingly, one thing done correctly is not validation. The IPCC and the modelers have created a morass, and they need to find their way out. See links under UnScience or Non-Science?

*****************

Solar Race: According to reports, China’s “Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has announced a list of 134 producers of silicon materials, solar panels and other components of photovoltaic systems as meeting certain conditions, as measured by 2012 production, capacity utilization and technical standards.” The remaining 500 plus companies are being abandoned. They will not be able to get credit lines from financial institutions or any government support. Built largely for the export market, the PV solar industry in China has been facing significant oversupply and financial losses.

Citizens in Western countries that did not join the race with China for 21st century energy can be thankful. Those who plan to install solar panels in the future may be facing higher prices, and questionable economics. As it is, photovoltaic solar is a mature industry and needs no subsidies. Is the DOE aware of this? See link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

*****************

Bio-Navy: For some in Washington news travels very slowly. The US Navy and the Department of Agriculture have announced their Farm to Fleet program to “make biofuel blends part of regular, operational fuel purchase and use by the military.” The claimed ultimate goal is to have “a secure, stable fuel source, guarding against oil price spikes.” The Secretary of Agriculture stated that “rural America stands ready to provide clean, homegrown energy that increases our military’s energy independence and puts Americans to work.”

According to the program’s promoters, biofuels will be available at less than $4 per gallon by 2016. This price remains to be seen.

The entire scheme seems to be based on out-of-date concepts. The threat of unprecedented and dangerous global warming is no longer occurring, except in unvalidated climate models. And even the White House recognizes that the dependence on oil from unstable regions in the world is declining. In October, US oil production exceeded imports and some members of Congress are considering introducing legislation removing the ban on oil exports.

One can only speculate what will happen to food prices if Middle America were hit with natural disasters such as the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 or the repeated droughts of the 1930s that turned much of the farmland into the Great Dust Bowl. The public will demand more than just ending such wasteful programs, implemented a time when US oil and natural gas production is increasing dramatically. See link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy – Other.

*****************

Climate Comedy: It’s summer in Antarctic and global warming is happening, so it must be balmy. A group of eco-tourists, journalists, and others, headed by a climate scientist ventured to cruise the Antarctic, following the route of explorer Douglas Mawson in 1911-1914 and to conduct the same experiments his team did. No doubt, the underlying purpose was a publicity opportunity to highlight the dangers of global warming. There was only one slight glitch for this wonderful venture, Antarctic sea ice is not melting according to the approved global warming script.

There is more than adequate reporting of the venture. However, the resources that were required to save this “Ship of Fools” would have better served the interest of science elsewhere. The venture, in modern fossil fuel driven vessels, using helicopters, trivializes the planning, fortitude and dangers faced by early polar explorers. See Quote of the Week and links under Climate Comedy?

*****************

Number of the Week: 12. Writing in ICECAP, Joseph D’Aleo introduces us to the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS), which, since the 1950s, has been used to categorize severe snow storms hitting the Northeast. According to D’Aleo, the worst decade for severe snowstorms was the 1960s with 11 storms so categorized. If the storm that just passed is categorized as severe, which it was in many parts of the Northeast, the total for this decade is now 12. And this is only the beginning of the fourth year of the decade. Readers may recall that the 1960s brought many climate alarmists to claim that a new Ice Age is upon us.

###################################################

ARTICLES:

For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: http://www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, was Chairman of the ABC, and of the board of the Australian Stock Exchange. He was Chancellor of Macquarie University until 2008.

No longer is the debate in regard to if the models are wrong. The debate is now about why the models are wrong. The models having fallen, the peer reviewed science they purport to represent falls with them.

Problems in the Orthodoxy

IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in the AR5 final draft

So even if Doug’s position is “the models are not yet falsified”, we have to ask where is the communication of the known problems with the models[?] Why has the Royal Meterological Society not explained the situation to politicians?

The similarity in approach to the Royal Meteorological Society is striking: there is exactly the same ambiguity, allowing the authors insinuate that the scientific community has confidence that the models are suitable for quantitative prediction while giving them plausible deniability in future.

Germany’s wind and solar power production came to an almost complete standstill in early December. More than 23,000 wind turbines stood still. One million photovoltaic systems stopped work nearly completely. For a whole week coal, nuclear and gas power plants had to generate an estimated 95 percent of Germany’s electricity supply.

That science should face crises in the early 21st century is inevitable. Power corrupts, and science today is the Catholic Church around the start of the 16th century: used to having its own way and dealing with heretics by excommunication, not argument.

No section for Agenda 21 issues which is the parent of AGW as well as global web of UN non benign issues?
I cover some of them in my posts at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com but the issue is larger than that and miles larger than AGW which is only one of many side shows.
Cheers
Roger

A few months reader, first time poster. I’d be interested to see any of you that are up to speed on the science of Solar engage with Michael Sankowski at Monetary Realism. p.s., I highly recommend the ‘Recommended Readings’ section for some perspectives on economics that you might not be familiar with.

Quite agree roger. Can’t leave it all to Christopher Monckton.
Too many people want to argue minutiae, while ignoring the bigger picture.

Fair play to Anthony, he has published some of my rants re UN Agenda 21 on WUWT.
And he’s just published an article on overpopulation, the fallacy behind the fallacy of global warming, so he’s getting there, in his steady scientific way.

Go to youtube & put in: Agenda 21 The Depopulation Agenda For a New World Order
1 hr 28 mins. An excellent expose of the diabolic plot.

Obviously the HUGE news is the extreme cold USA. Finally ALL the MSM (BBC, CNN, Aljazerra ect) are reporting it as main news item, Now they HAVE to, no choice. Will knock another 15% off the AGW believers in the USA.

Richard Lindzen presents a problem for those who say that the science behind climate change is “settled.” So many “alarmists” prefer to ignore him and instead highlight straw men: less credible skeptics, such as climatologist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama (signatory to a declaration that “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”), the Heartland Institute (which likened climate “alarmists” to the Unabomber), and Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma (a major energy-producing state). The idea is to make it seem as though the choice is between accepting the view of, say, journalist James Delingpole (B.A., English literature), who says global warming is a hoax, and that of, say, James Hansen (Ph.D., physics, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies), who says that we are moving toward “an ice-free Antarctica and a desolate planet without human inhabitants.”

The important number is nit the $20 a bbl extraction costs. It is the $70 a bbl required to keep their system running. Iran is worse at $80 to $90 a bbl. And Iran is not investing to keep production up. Collapse expected in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

I’d be interested to see any of you that are up to speed on the science of Solar engage with Michael Sankowski at Monetary Realism.

Looks like you have to sign up to comment.

Solar is not viable without subsidy. In addition passing clouds wreak havoc with grid stability. Solar is not a steady source of power – unless you hold a fraction in reserve – i.e. the reserve is generating but not delivering power. Waste. The alternative is keeping “burners” on hot standby. Waste.

How about storage? Too expensive at this time. The cost has to be reduced 4X to 6X to make solar viable.

Re: “Strong Positive Feedback”…Many (most, all?) climate models incorporate positive feedback algorithms which are at the very root of their excessive temperature projections and all the dire consequences that follow. But one necessary consequence of the positive feedback assumptions is the existence of a tropical hotspot. The tropical hotspot, however, has never been detected. Thus, given that the feedback assumptions represent the very ‘soul’ of the models, it seems to me that the models have clearly been falsified.